SWL Crisis Cafés: Service user and carer insight report

1. Executive summary

The purpose of this engagement exercise was to understand people’s experiences of using crisis cafes in South West London. It provided several ways for people to share their views through: an online survey (252 responses); semi-structured interviews online or on the phone and in person at crisis cafes (c21 in-depth conversations).

The report covers three main sections: what do people value/like about the service; what are some of the barriers to accessing these services; and what are some of the practical considerations for service delivery.

What people value about crisis cafes

• Non-clinical, welcoming environment – People consistently emphasised that cafés feel safer, calmer and more human than hospital or A&E. The informal, non-medical setting helps people connect and open-up.
• Immediate and flexible support – The ability to drop in or self-refer is highly valued, especially compared to long NHS waiting lists. Many said cafés helped prevent escalation to A&E.
• Staff qualities – Staff were praised for their compassion, listening skills, and lived experience of mental health, which helped build trust.
• Peer support and social connection – Opportunities to meet others with shared experiences reduced isolation and stigma.
• Practical help – For some, signposting and advocacy (e.g. housing, benefits, counselling referrals) made a significant difference.

Barriers to accessing crisis cafés

• Lack of awareness – Many people simply did not know cafés existed, or their GP had not mentioned them.
• Stigma, shame and fear – Fear of being judged, confidentiality worries, or anxiety that attending could trigger escalation (e.g. being sectioned).
• Accessibility challenges – Location, transport costs, limited parking, or physically inaccessible buildings all impact attendance.
• Cultural and language barriers – Non-English speakers, minority ethnic communities, and faith groups may face additional stigma or communication difficulties.
• Specific groups at risk of exclusion – Disabled people, carers with childcare responsibilities, neurodivergent people, those in severe distress, and socially isolated individuals may struggle most to access services.

Practical considerations for service delivery

• Opening hours and flexibility – people talked about evening, weekend and late-night provision, recognising that crises rarely fit into 9–5 schedules.
• Length of stay – being able to stay in the cafe for a variety of different time periods is important, open-ended and not fixed time limits was discussed.
• Location and environment – people described venues which are safe, discreet but easy to find, close to public transport, and step-free. Trauma-informed interiors and quiet spaces were important to many people.
• Awareness raising – GPs, NHS staff and community organisations helping promote cafés, alongside posters, social media, and word of mouth.
• Integration with other services – strong links to mental health teams, housing, benefits and counselling services help people move from crisis support into longer-term help.
• Workforce – People value staff with lived experience as well as training in autism, neurodiversity and cultural competence were raised.

Overall Crisis cafés are highly valued as safe, non-clinical spaces offering immediate and compassionate support. However, many people do not know they exist, and practical barriers such as accessibility, stigma, and opening hours could risk excluding people.

2. Introduction

The ICB will be going through a new procurement process for crisis cafe services across South West London, with current contracts coming to an end on 31 March 2026.

Crisis cafes are open during the evenings and weekends providing a safe and inclusive place for people struggling to cope with their mental health. They offer peer support, therapeutic activities and counselling.

The aim is to ensure that local residents can expect the same high quality of care no matter where they live, while enabling services to be tailored to each borough based on people’s needs. 

The objective of this piece of work was to ensure that the service specification for crisis cafes was informed by service users, potential service users and carers.

The engagement took place over August and September 2025 – aligned to the market engagement exercise with stakeholders. This report details the findings of the user involvement engagement exercise and will be fed into the development of the refreshed specification.

3. What we did (methodology)

To enable multiple ways for people to take part, we used a mixed methodology that supported both service users and those who don’t access the service, and experience poorer health outcomes, to shape the specification. We also sought feedback from carers.

Key elements of our approach included:

Baseline knowledge and preparation – we conducted a desk-top review of existing insight and matched key themes against areas of the specification identified as open to influence. This helped ensure that we built on existing insight and co-design work and enabled us to identify gaps in knowledge and reach. The review highlighted the need for more information about: location of cafes; opening times; awareness of the service; activity preference and accessibility needs. Our engagement questions focused on these areas as well as understanding in more detail what people like and value about the service (and should be retained) and what more could be done to better meet people’s needs.

Online survey – we developed an online survey, open to all, to enable a higher volume of people to share their feedback. This was promoted by partners, providers, VCSE contacts and via social media. Originally the survey was open for a month over August. However, following feedback that this was difficult for people who were away over the summer, the deadline was extended until mid-September.

In recognition that surveys have limitations in who they reach, this was complemented by a more targeted approach through:

• Semi-structured interviews – these were promoted via VCSE contacts/networks and through the survey. We prioritised speaking to a sample of people who are underrepresented in prevention services such as people who have English as a second language and from global majority backgrounds, and carers.

• One-to-one interviews at crisis cafes/with service users and carers – led by mental health commissioners who attended crisis cafés to speak to service users or interviewed them on the phone where requested.

4. Approach to analysis

This report brings together findings from the survey and the interviews (semi-structured online/phone and at crisis cafes). Survey responses were analysed using a mixed-methods approach – closed questions (such as multiple-choice and ranking questions) have been summarised and presented in charts and tables. Free-text responses were thematically coded to identify the most common themes, with quotes included to reflect service user and carer perspectives. In addition, the 21 one-to-one interviews were analysed thematically and compared with survey results. Overall, survey data provided breadth and an overview of priorities across a larger sample (252), while interviews offered depth, nuance, and lived experience detail. The two sources of data have been integrated to highlight consistent themes as well as areas where interviews added new insights less visible in the survey.

5. Who we spoke to (demographics)

5.1 Survey

5.1.1 Gender identity of survey respondents
Most survey respondents identified as women (138) or men (95). Smaller numbers identified as non-binary (3) or other (1), while 14 respondents preferred not to say.

5.1.2 Age of survey respondents
Most respondents were aged 50–64 (107) and 25–49 (84). Smaller numbers were aged 65–79 (34) or 18–24 (13), with only one respondent aged 80+. Thirteen respondents preferred not to state their age.

5.1.3 Disability or long-term condition status of survey respondents
The largest group of respondents reported having a long-term condition (110). Sixty-five respondents reported having a disability, while 45 reported none of the above and 30 preferred not to say.

5.1.4 Borough of survey respondents
We asked people to tell us which borough in south west London they lived or used services in: Merton (56); Sutton (53); Croydon (40); Richmond (37); Wandsworth (37) and Kingston (27).

5.1.5 Which crisis cafe did respondents say they used?

Merton Sunshine Recovery Café (70); Sutton Crisis Café (50); Wandsworth Recovery Café (36); Kingston and Richmond Hub (17) and Croydon Recovery Space (12).

5.1.6 Ethnicity of survey respondents
Most respondents identified as White – British, Northern Irish, Welsh, or Scottish (145). Smaller numbers identified as White European (16), Indian (13), Black British (10), Asian British (7), Black Caribbean (7), or White Irish (7). A range of other ethnic groups were represented in very small numbers (1–3 respondents each).

5.1.7 Whether respondents were a service user or carer

We asked survey respondents whether they had used a crisis cafe, would consider using one in the future, cared for someone who had used one or cared for someone with a mental health problem who has not used one. One hundred and twenty nine people were service users; 69 people were a service user but not used a café; 23 people were a carer of someone who had used a café and 25 people were a carer of a service user who had not used a café.

5.2 One-to-one interviews

5.2.1  Gender identity of people we spoke to on a one-to-one basis

Ten people were female, 9 were male, 1 was non-binary and 1 preferred not to say.

5.2.2  Age of people we spoke to on a one-to-one basis

Eight people were between 50-64, 7 people were between 25-49, 4 people were between 18-24 and 1 person was over 80 years old.

5.2.3  Disabilities and long-term conditions reported by one-to-one interview participants.

Of the 21 interview participants, almost all reported a disability or long-term condition, most commonly mental health conditions such as depression, PTSD, OCD or schizophrenia. Several participants also reported neurodiverse conditions (e.g., autism, Functional Neurological Disorder) and physical health conditions (Crohn’s, colitis, arthritis, vision impairment). Only one person reported not having a disability.

5.2.4  Borough of residence of one-to-one interview participants

Five people were from Sutton, 5 from Wandsworth and 5 from Merton. Three people from Croydon, 2 from Kingston and 1 person from Richmond.

6. What we heard (findings)

6.1 What do people like/value about crisis cafes?

Section summary 

People value crisis cafés most when they combine:

• A safe, welcoming space
• Supportive staff (often with lived experience)
• Immediate emotional help and one-to-one support
• Accessible hours and drop-in entry
• Opportunities for connection and recovery through activities

Cafés are described as lifelines, helping people avoid A&E, de-escalate crises, and build confidence. While emotional support and staff approach are fundamental, people also value cafés that link to wider services, recognise cultural needs, and provide meaningful activities that support longer-term recovery

6.1.1 What people value or like most about crisis cafes

6.1.1.1 Analysis across all boroughs

To understand what people value about crisis cafés, we gathered feedback through both the survey (142 responses to this question) and through the 21 one-to-one interviews. We asked people what they liked or valued about the service.

Both datasets emphasised staff support and a safe, non-judgemental environment. Interviews added stronger emphasis on peer support and structured activities, and provided more detail about access as an alternative to A&E and critical reflections on unmet needs.

Key integrated thematic findings – what people liked/valued:

 1. Safe & non-judgemental environment

Survey findings
One of the most frequently mentioned themes (65 mentions). Respondents valued crisis cafés as safe, non-clinical, inclusive spaces where they could escape judgement and stigma.

Interview insights
Interviews echoed this strongly, with richer description of quiet rooms, confidentiality, and adjustments for neurodiverse people. Several people noted that just being in a safe space helped them calm down.

“It was a safe place to escape to where there is no judgement.”

“Non-judgemental, safe, non-clinical.”

“Welcoming, safe environment. Easily available and no referral needed.”

2. Staff approach & support

Survey findings
The single most frequent theme (70 mentions). Staff were valued for being friendly, empathic, supportive, and professional.

Interview insights
The interviews reinforced this theme – people described the value of continuity (seeing the same staff), lived experience, and follow-up support (such as welfare calls). Some described staff helping them set goals or even supporting progression into volunteering.

“The staff were brilliant and understanding and it felt like I was being listened to.”

“Staff listened to me, were non-judgemental, made me feel safe and provided reassurance and emotional support.”

“I liked that the staff were trained in what to do in a crisis, especially since I have autism.”

3. Emotional impact & outcomes

Survey findings
Around 42 respondents described cafés as a lifeline, or said they helped them feel calmer, supported, or listened to.

Interview insights
Interviews provided further detail on longer-term outcomes. Participants spoke of building confidence, learning self-care, and developing routines. Some even described moving into volunteering roles as part of their recovery.

“The crisis café was a lifeline for me when I was going through crisis.”

“Knowing I could show up when I needed, that I could talk to someone or not… helped de-escalate a crisis.”“They talked to me about self-care… helped me identify goals and develop a plan.”

“They talked to me about self-care… helped me identify goals and develop a plan.”

“I even record these 1-1 sessions and listen to the recording when I’m on my own so I could apply the strategies and learning.”

4. Activities & opportunities

Survey findings
Mentioned by about 31 respondents, who noted mindfulness sessions, Recovery College, and refreshments as valued features.

Interview insights
Interviews added much greater detail. People described structured and creative programmes such as art therapy, music, meditation, quizzes, yoga, and workshops. These were felt to be important recovery tools, supporting coping, confidence, and social interaction.

“Books. Mindfulness and anxiety courses were exceptional.”

“They offered an amazing 12-week art therapy programme… it was lovely to bond with other women.”

“A place you can relax and stay with your thoughts. A place where you can play board games.”

“I’d like to lead activities in the Crisis Cafe using some of my skills when I am well.”

5. Access & practicalities

Survey findings
Around 29 respondents mentioned practical aspects such as opening hours, local locations, confidentiality, and affordable refreshments.

Interview insights
Interviews highlighted the cafés’ role as an alternative to A&E, valued their out-of-hours availability, and appreciated easy registration. People also noted refreshments and the ability to bring a partner or friend.

“It was close to where I lived without needing to use public transport.”

“Evening and weekend hours are super helpful. It was easy to access the service.”

“I use the Crisis Cafe nearly every other day including weekdays and weekends.”

6. Peer support & social connection

Survey findings
A minor theme in survey responses, usually mentioned in passing.

Interview insights
Much more prominent in interviews. People described peer support as essential, helping them feel less isolated, normalising their experiences, and creating solidarity.

“Talking with peers who understand makes me feel less alone as I felt more alone with mainstream mental health services.”

“Peer support, regular contact with familiar faces, the routine, reliability.”

 “I know that I’m not alone during a crisis.”

7. Critical reflections / unmet needs

Survey findings
A handful of respondents raised issues, such as not being aware of crisis cafés or finding them less personally helpful.

Interview insights
Interviews offered more detail and depth, highlighting limitations such as caps on one-to-one sessions, variability in staff helpfulness, and practical issues (e.g. food). Some also raised frustration with long waits for follow-up NHS services.

“I had to stop after 6 sessions but wanted to continue.”

“It will take nearly 9 months to receive this service. I require the services now, not in a year’s time.”

“It was run efficiently and was welcoming before the new manager came… service quality has changed.”

6.1.1.2 Comparison of people who used Croydon Recovery Space to those who used crisis cafes in the other boroughs.

Croydon Recovery Space uses a different model to the other 5 crisis cafes. In Croydon they have a referrals-based model with limited drop ins. The other boroughs are ‘walk-in’ based with no appointment needed. When looking at what people like about the service, we compared responses from those who said they used Croydon Recovery Space (12 survey responses and 3 one-to-one interviews) to users of the other 5 walk in services to see if there were any differences or comments relating to the model. It should be noted that there were only 15 responses from people who used Croydon Recovery Space – so these observations need to be read in that context and might not be generalisable.

Whereas across the other 5 boroughs, there was a strong emphasis on accessibility and flexibility with the model of not needing referrals, open evening and weekends and walk in options being valued. These themes were less frequent from Croydon service users. Access was mentioned in the interviews with people commenting:

“I think the option to just walk in without a referral is really important”.

“Wide range of opening hours – often crisis occurs out of hours throughout the night, so evening and weekend availability is important.”

Strong and consistent themes in Croydon were about valuing professionalism, continuity, and being saved in crisis.

6.1.2 Important features

In the survey we asked people to choose their top 5 important features of crisis cafes. We also asked people during our 121 interviews what they felt was important about a crisis café.

All respondents emphasised the value of a safe, welcoming, non-clinical environment, supportive staff, and accessible opening hours. Interviews added stronger emphasis on peer support, structured activities, and cultural inclusivity, while features such as clinical staff and practical support were less prominent.

In the survey, respondents most frequently prioritised the atmosphere and emotional safety of crisis cafés. The top-ranked features were having a warm, welcoming environment (179 mentions), a safe non-clinical space (148), and immediate emotional support (144). Practical access was also highly valued, with evening and weekend opening (104) and easy access without referral (96) ranking in the top five, alongside the importance of peer support staff with lived experience (97). Other features, such as clinical staff (71), quiet spaces (63), or activities (28), were mentioned less often overall.

The interviews strongly echoed these with some variation. Participants described cafés as the “opposite of A&E”: calm, homely, and non-clinical environments where people could feel safe. Staff were seen as central to this — not just for their professionalism but also for their empathy, lived experience, and cultural sensitivity. Drop-in access and flexible opening hours were repeatedly stressed, with some suggesting later hours to reflect the times when crises most often occur.

Interviews also gave greater weight to certain features that were less prominent in the survey. These included:

• Activities (e.g. art, poetry, yoga, tai chi, meditation), described not simply as add-ons but as vital for recovery, routine, and social connection.
• Peer support and lived experience staff, emphasised as essential for building trust and reducing isolation.
• Cultural sensitivity and diversity, including celebrating different cultures and ensuring staff teams reflect service users’ backgrounds.

6.1.3 Activities at crisis cafes

When asked what activities would make them more likely to attend a crisis café, survey respondents most often selected mindfulness (144) and art (123), followed by music (99) and yoga (63).

6.1.4 Support services

In the survey we asked people to rank which services would make them more likely to attend a crisis café. We also asked this as an open-ended question in the one-to-one interviews.

Both surveys (142) and interviews (21) emphasised emotional support and one-to-one counselling as top priorities, with strong interest also in peer support and referrals to other services. Interviews highlighted the value of advocacy, financial advice, carer-specific support, and trauma therapy referrals, which were less visible in the survey. Fewer respondents prioritised complementary therapies or healthy eating, although these were welcomed by some as additional wellbeing options.

“The emotional support, peer support, onward referrals and one-to-one counselling are all very helpful.”

“121 discussion, with skilled professionals able to quickly identify concerns and offer talking therapy.”

“Peer support, particularly in the early stages… gives hope to listen to and meet people who have recovered.

Struggle with finances – offer an outreach of CAB… acts as a one stop shop.”

6.2 What barriers stop people from accessing the service?

Section summary

Our survey and interviews show that a range of barriers can prevent people from accessing crisis cafés during a mental health crisis. The most common issues are:

• lack of awareness about where cafés are and when they are open,
• practical challenges such as distance, transport, and caring responsibilities
• trust and safety – with people deterred by fears of escalation, confidentiality breaches, or past negative experiences with services.

Feelings of stigma, embarrassment, and cultural or language barriers also play an important role.

6.2.1 What might stop people from using crisis cafes?

In our survey we asked people if they, or someone they cared for were experiencing a mental health crisis, what might stop them from using a crisis cafe.

Survey respondents most frequently identified not knowing where to find a crisis café (84) and worrying that it would not be open when needed (82) as barriers to access. Other common issues included distance from home (69), feeling ashamed or embarrassed (68), worry about being judged (59), and concerns about waiting times (55). Fewer respondents mentioned confidentiality, staff understanding, or safety, though these were raised more strongly during interviews.

During our one-to-one interviews we also asked people “what might stop you accessing a crisis café if you were experiencing a mental health crisis?”

While, survey results highlight practical barriers (awareness, opening hours, travel) and stigma as the most common concerns. Interviewees echoed these themes but added important layers of depth:

• A strong sense that promotion and awareness is lacking, especially from GPs and A&E.
• Cultural and community stigma emerged more strongly, alongside issues of language and faith.
• Interviewees emphasised trust issues — fears about escalation, breaches of confidentiality, and staff not being fully present.
• They also highlighted service design details (re-registration requirements, clarity of support available).

Survey responses highlight the most common barriers with practical issues such as awareness, opening hours, and distance most frequently mentioned. Interview findings illustrate how these barriers play out in practice and raise further concerns around trust, safety, cultural stigma, and service design.

6.2.2 Reasons for avoiding getting help during a mental health crisis.

In our survey we also asked a broader question about why people avoided getting help during a mental health crisis.

The most common barriers to seeking help in a mental health crisis were negative past experiences with services, fears of being sectioned or hospitalised, and not recognising themselves as ‘sick enough’. Lack of awareness that help was available, and difficulties linked to neurodiversity and sensory overload, were also frequently chosen. Less common,  barriers included mobility issues, childcare responsibilities, and concerns about cultural appropriateness or language.

This dataset complements the crisis café–specific barriers by showing the wider systemic barriers people face in a crisis. For example:

• Both datasets highlight trust and fear of services (fear of sectioning; negative past experiences; worry about being judged).
• Both raise practical issues (childcare, transport, mobility).

The broader question also surfaced barriers around cultural appropriateness, language, immigration.

6.2.3 How to improve experience of crisis cafes

In the survey, we asked people an open-ended question – if there was anything they would change to improve their experience of a crisis café.

6.2.3.1 Themed improvements to crisis cafés – across all responses

Across all responses, people consistently emphasised that crisis cafés should remain safe, non-clinical spaces, but with improvements to staffing, environment, and accessibility. The most common suggestions were for more and better-trained staff — particularly those with lived experience and expertise in neurodivergence — and longer opening hours, with some calling for 24/7 provision. Respondents valued a comfortable and welcoming environment with quiet areas, while activities such as art, outings, and group sessions were seen as an important part of recovery. Calls were also made for more 1-to-1 support, peer mentoring, reliable referrals, and follow-up contact. Practical barriers, including travel, parking, and disability access, were also highlighted. While some reported no improvements needed, others expressed concern about staff professionalism and the sustainability of services in the face of potential cuts.

1. Staffing and expertise

• More staff to allow extended hours and reduce pressure.
• More lived experience staff and peer mentors.
• Specialist training for autism, neurodivergence, OCD, and less common conditions.
• More access to mental health professionals (counsellors, psychotherapists, psychologists).
• Concerns about staff professionalism and respect.

“Honestly, you have got to employ staff who behave professionally… staff need to treat users as human beings.”
“More staff with lived experience and better training in conditions such as autism and other neurodivergent conditions.”

2. Environment and comfort

• Keep spaces non-clinical, calm, and welcoming.
• Improve comfort: better seating, lighting balance, quiet/private rooms, sensory aids, décor.
• Reduce the feeling of being “assessed” on arrival.
• Suggestions for youth-friendly spaces and different “zones” to meet needs.

“More comfortable places to sit… it helps to be physically comfortable in a mental health crisis.”
“It would be good if you could just go and not have to disclose much if you don’t want to. I felt like I was being assessed.”

3. Opening hours and accessibility

• Requests for longer hours, including afternoons and evenings.
• Calls for 24/7 availability in some cases.
• Remove restrictions on how often or how long someone can attend.
• Maintain weekend/evening provision and avoid service cuts.
• Practical accessibility: parking, better disability access.

“The timings could never changed to have 24 hrs support.”
 “Additional staff, so it could be open all the time!”

4. Activities and recovery support

• Desire for more varied and reliable activities: art, yoga, outings (e.g. museums), pool table, group discussions.
• Requests for activities every day, with fewer cancellations.
• Activities seen as important for recovery, social connection, and encouraging attendance.

“There should be external outings, going to museums.”
 “Group topic discussions are useful, as are short talks.”

5. Support and connections

• More 1-to-1 support, counselling, and peer support.
• Better links to NHS services and referrals.
• Support for carers and recognition of their role.
• Suggestions for follow-up contact (texts/calls if people disengage).
• Practical advice (benefits, housing) — though quality variable.

“Provide an option to get a nudge/text/call if we go quiet.
“Being welcomed as the supporter of the person in crisis.”

6. Practicalities and access

• Easier travel or reduce need to move to hospital after attending.
• Guaranteed parking.
• More locations / additional cafés.
• Better accessibility for disabled people.

“More focus on accessibility for disabled people.”
“Maybe instead of asking us to travel to hospital… someone from hospital could be at the café.”

7. Other reflections

• Many respondents said no changes were needed — they valued the cafés highly.
• Some strongly negative accounts of staff attitudes and service delivery.
• Carers especially anxious about funding cuts or closures.

“My biggest concern [is] that you are trying to remove this service at a time when we need them most.”
“I am at a loss to think of ways to improve my experience. It has always been really good.”

6.2.3.2 Comparison of responses from service users and carers

We compared responses from carers and service users. The core priorities are very similar — safe, non-clinical environments with skilled staff and accessible hours. The differences are in perspective:

Service users:

• Talked a lot about activities (arts, outings, groups, buddying) as important to recovery and making the cafés attractive.
• Focused more on comfort and accessibility (seating, lighting, décor, sensory aids).
• Some gave strong feedback on professionalism and respect of staff.
• Wanted more follow-up support (texts/calls if disengaged).

Carers:

• Talked more about the need for specialist staff training (autism, neurodivergence, OCD).
• Requested access to psychologists or more clinically experienced staff to handle complex cases.
• Highlighted being recognised as carers and welcomed into the service.
• Expressed anxiety about sustainability, fearing services might be reduced or cut.

6.3 Practical considerations

Sections summary

Feedback highlighted several practical considerations that can shape the model for crisis cafes.

• Awareness was an issue with suggestions around how to promote it through other services and organisations.
• People strongly valued the drop-in model, saying that being able to walk in without a referral is crucial in a crisis.
• Opening times were also critical: the strongest demand was for evening and weekend provision, as well as some late-night availability, reflecting when crises most often occur.
• People wanted cafés to be local, near public transport, and easy to find
• Many saw cafés as a valuable alternative to overstretched or intimidating services, but stressed the importance of good connections to other services such as housing, benefits, therapy, social care, and community activities.

6.3.1 Awareness

From this insight, we have heard that awareness is a key barrier to accessing crisis cafes. We asked people how aware they were of them (survey), and what more we could do to improve awareness (survey and one-to-one interviews).

Survey respondent awareness of crisis cafes

Around six in ten respondents (62%) had used a crisis café, while a further 29% had heard of them but never used one. Nine percent said they had never heard of crisis cafés. While these findings cannot be generalised to the wider population, as people with prior knowledge may have been more likely to complete the survey, they suggest that awareness is not universal even among an engaged group. This could indicate the importance of wider promotion.

What can be done to improve awareness?

During the survey and in the one-to-one interviews, we asked people what more we could do to make people more aware of them.

When asked how awareness of crisis cafés could be improved, respondents most frequently identified receiving information through their GP or another healthcare provider (207), followed by leaflets and posters in community spaces (182), local NHS or council websites (145), and community organisations or charities (153). Social media (129), word of mouth (127), and schools, colleges or universities (106) were also important channels.  Full details in the table below.

6.3.2 Access and availability

6.3.2.1 What could improve access?

We wanted to understand what would help people to access crisis cafes – and we explored this through the survey and one-to-one interviews.

We asked participants to rank seven practical considerations in order of importance when accessing a crisis café. We gave points to each choice (1 point for most important through to 7 points for least important) and then worked out the average. The list below shows the final ranking in terms of what people felt were important when accessing a crisis cafe.

1. Safe, secure location
2. Can self-refer to the service
3. Located within the borough I live in
4. Close to public transport
5. Welcoming interior design (trauma informed)
6. Step free access
7. Access to interpreters

6.3.2.2 What opening times did people prefer?

In the survey we asked people when they thought crisis cafes should be open. People were able to select when they thought it should be open. The top answer was weekday evenings, followed by weekend evenings and then weekend afternoons.

6.3.2.3 Length of stay

In the survey we asked people how long they would expect to stay at a crisis cafe. Most people preferred open ended/as needed – with no restrictions on their time.

6.3.2.4 Location

We asked people where they would prefer the crisis cafe to be located. They were able to rank 5 options. The averaged rankings are below.

1. Town centre
2. Community centre
3. High street
4. NHS site
5. Place of worship

6.3.2.5 Confidence accessing the service

In the survey we asked people how confident they felt accessing the service. While many reported feeling very confident or confident, a substantial number said they felt only somewhat or slightly confident, and a smaller group said they were not confident at all. This, plus what we heard around barriers, suggests that there are still important issues that could be reducing people’s confidence to attend.

6.3.2.6 Support systems accessed during a mental health crisis

We asked respondents which forms of support they had accessed during a mental health crisis. While this question cannot tell us whether crisis cafés are replacing the use of services such as A&E or GPs, it does provide useful insight into where crisis cafés currently sit within the wider system of crisis support. The findings suggest that cafés are already being used by many people, though traditional services such as GPs and A&E remain commonly accessed.

6.3.2.7 Who face the most difficulty accessing a crisis cafe?

In the survey as asked people which groups of people in the community might have the most difficulty accessing a crisis cafe. This was an open-ended question where we have coded the responses to give a sense of how often each was mentioned. The top 3 most referenced groups were: people with physical disabilities; neurodivergent people and people from ethnic minority backgrounds. Many responses were non-specific e.g. ‘anyone could struggle’ – showing recognition that barriers could affect everyone.

These responses highlight the importance of reducing barriers for these communities who may already face the highest risk of poor outcomes.

6.3.3 Connection to other support services

We wanted to understand more about the role that crisis cafe’s play in helping to connect service users to other parts of the health service. This was addressed in the survey through two questions. The first question asked people if, when they attended a crisis cafe, they needed help to connect with other support services. Sixty-four (25%) of people said they did, 68 (27%) said they didn’t, and 120 people (48%) said it wasn’t relevant.

For those who said they did need to connect with other support services, we asked what would have helped them more. This was an open-ended question – which we coded and themed the responses to.

Respondents who needed help connecting to other services described a strong desire for practical, hands-on support rather than being left to navigate complex systems alone. The most common requests were for clearer signposting and accessible information (such as leaflets, easy-read guides, or service sheets), and for staff to actively make referrals or advocate on their behalf. Many highlighted the importance of linking to housing, benefits and financial advice, counselling and therapy, and specialist services such as alcohol or bereavement support. A smaller number noted that while they did receive timely and appropriate help, consistency and follow-up were often missing, leaving people feeling unsupported once they left the café. Others stressed that mainstream services could be difficult to access, making the role of the café as a bridge to those services even more important.

7. Key considerations for commissioners

Based on the feedback gathered during this engagement exercise, when looking at the new specification for crisis cafes, commissioners could be cognisant of the following consistent themes that came through:

• Flexible and longer opening hours, walk in options, accessible locations, and reliable transport options
• Increased awareness – promoted through GPs, community organisations, social prescribers, and peer networks are vital channels – with a focus on reaching underrepresented groups.
• Tackling inequalities – ensuring accessibility for groups facing additional barriers – disabled people, carers, ethnic minority communities, neurodiverse people, and those without digital access.
• Request for staff trained in trauma-informed practice, cultural competence, and neurodiversity
• Strengthened connections to other services to link people to housing, benefits, counselling, and other community services, not just signpost.
• Maintaining the non-clinical ethos – people consistently valued the cafés’ welcoming, human approach, which many contrasted with negative past experiences of statutory services.